GetUnitTestResult

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description implies a read-only operation by using 'Retrieve', but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., behavior if run_id is invalid). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and key concepts, with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a retrieval tool, the absence of an output schema increases the importance of describing return values or structure. The description does not indicate what the result contains or that the format can be controlled via the 'format' parameter (mentioned only in schema). Given the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage, it is just adequate but could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, where each parameter is described. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description mentions 'for a run_id' but that is already captured in the schema's required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('ABAP Unit test run result') with the key identifier ('for a run_id'). It is specific but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like GetCdsUnitTestResult or GetUnitTestStatus, which serve analogous purposes for different test types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, the relationship with RunUnitTest (which presumably generates a run_id) is not explained, nor are conditions like required prerequisites or error states. The description only states the basic function without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.